Great post on why AoS is great

[CoffeeGrunt]

Chord is arguing that they do, though. Address his argument, not mine.

[Immersturm]

The point about the game being more fluid, it is so huge! This is one of the major reasons why I tend to play more AoS than 40k. A great example from a few months back. A buddy of mine and myself did a 3000pts game. Chaos vs Sigmarines. We both put the big dragons on the board, our big Cav and whatever else the store could give us.

Next to us, two tournament players were doing their regular 1850pts 40k game. Drop Pod Marines vs Rhino Battle Company.

The game was amazing. No idea how long it lasted but towards the end it turned into a massacre and both of us were yelling at the top of our lungs, giving each other knuckle sandwiches and headbutts (our idea of having fun, he is a Khorne player and I am a Space Wolf). It was a blast.

When we were done, I looked over to the 40k table. Those guys were top or bottom of turn 3, arguing if one of the six remaining Rhinos would get cover against a Stormbolter from a Drop Pod.

No further questions, your honour

[KHHaunts]

11 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Chord is arguing that they do, though. Address his argument, not mine.

Sorry it come across more sarcastic than I had in my head.

It was meant for your discussion in general

I'll have a third and final go at my question before I give up.

To me the RULES say that you would be able to attack people on the walls in melee without being on them. Do people agree?

NOT your opinion on what's fun or realistic but the ACTUAL rules

Again not directed specifically at u coffee

[KHHaunts]

Apologies  for the "u"

[Rogue Explorator]

2 hours ago, KHHaunts said:

Sorry it come across more sarcastic than I had in my head.

It was meant for your discussion in general

I'll have a third and final go at my question before I give up.

To me the RULES say that you would be able to attack people on the walls in melee without being on them. Do people agree?

NOT your opinion on what's fun or realistic but the ACTUAL rules

Again not directed specifically at u coffee

See my earlier answer, yes, by rules as written (taking into account the FAQ), you can charge units on a wall, even if you can't place the units on it, as they are actually "floating" on the wall within attack distance, and, due to wobbly model syndrome, remain placed at the foot of the wall.

 

In the end, this is all academic, since siege scenarios are entirely within the realm of Open and Narrative Play, where I'd consider lawyering RaW to be bad form*. Just talk this out with your coplayers on what you both can agree to be more fun, "realistic" or easier to handle.

 

*Unlike Matched Play, where I consider it absolutely necessary. Basically, the moment you no longer play by Rules as Written, you no longer play Matched Play

[wayniac]

1 hour ago, Rogue Explorator said:

See my earlier answer, yes, by rules as written (taking into account the FAQ), you can charge units on a wall, even if you can't place the units on it, as they are actually "floating" on the wall within attack distance, and, due to wobbly model syndrome, remain placed at the foot of the wall.

 

In the end, this is all academic, since siege scenarios are entirely within the realm of Open and Narrative Play, where I'd consider lawyering RaW to be bad form*. Just talk this out with your coplayers on what you both can agree to be more fun, "realistic" or easier to handle.

 

*Unlike Matched Play, where I consider it absolutely necessary. Basically, the moment you no longer play by Rules as Written, you no longer play Matched Play

Except for the measuring to base rule right, since that's not rules as written

Sorry, that was snarky and that wasn't really my intent.  But yeah, for the most part I agree.  I think even Matched Play shows it's flaws because it's too flat usually, when a lot of the way AOS is designed is still for Open/Narrative play, at the very least where you want to discuss some sort of scenario or add extras to balance things out, which you rarely if ever see in Matched Play.

[CoffeeGrunt]

A compromise from LotR would be to house-rule Ladders. A unit carries them, and they allow free movement up a wall. Upon a successful charge the enemy models are pushed 3" back to allow the climbing models to attack. Would work nicely so long as the wall isn't packed.

[chord]

5 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

1) Tomb Kings are not in GA: Death, it shows that you've never read the book,

2) Most Tomb Kings units are no longer sold, so even then, a person couldn't but now models to expand their collection,

3) You can only cast Arcane Bolt once per turn. If you spam Wizards and play Open, then maybe it might work, provided you roll well and your opponent isn't running chaff units that don't care about Mortal Wounds,

4) Summoning only works in open play, and the entire unit had to be further than 9"away. With an 18"range on summoning itself, your summoner would have to be against the wall in order to summon. They'd still have the same problem though: They can't get on top of the wall to kill your units, so a ranged unit on the wall could just cut down the summoned unit,

5) Said Flying models also have to start 3" away from the enemy and end up 3" away on the other side, and still can't attack the wall units. That could be a very long move,

6) A person playing a pure, fluffy list shouldn't have to compromise that because the scenario is stacked against them, it's simply unfair and doesn't make for a fun game now an engaging narrative. A Khorne Bloodbound or Deathrattle force, or heck, a cavalry-oriented Brettonian list would be powerless to do anything,

7) Appealing to realism in a high fantasy game of toy soldiers is silly,

You're kind of being rude.   And that is correct I've not bought the GA:Death book. 

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm just noting that it's not smart to argue from an uniformed position. I don't lecture people on the side effects of vaccines without reading a few papers, and I wouldn't recommend lecturing people on not using their alliance options if you have no idea what's in said alliance.

[Gaz Taylor]

++ Mod Hat On ++

Folks can I ask you to please keep this a bit more civil as I don't want to start issuing warnings and wot not. This is a nice place to come and talk about toy soldiers and I want it to stay that way  

Cheers

[Ollie Grimwood]

Tomb Kings do have the Death key word though they're still part of the Death Grand Alliance even if they aren't in the paper book. 

I'd think a siege scenario would have to be a narrative game, they present such an unequal  and specialist situation they don't really suit Matched play (the concept rather than the rules). 

I think using Etheral units to move through castle walls is a great idea. Although I think this was part of the intent when most of them were given the fly rule, that is they move though stuff rather than over it in the conventional sense. 

[CoffeeGrunt]

Despite Ethereal you still have to start at best 3" away from the enemy on the wall, then end up further than 3" away on the other side. That's possibly a 9" move or more, meaning you'll have to Run if anything, meaning you give up the charge. Would mostly depend on how thick the castle walls are, though.

[Ollie Grimwood]

Indeed and of course it's dependent on how high the walls are and the the models themselves I suppose. That's part of what makes me say it needs to a narrative game there's just so much that's going to come up

[chord]

47 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

Tomb Kings do have the Death key word though they're still part of the Death Grand Alliance even if they aren't in the paper book. 

I'd think a siege scenario would have to be a narrative game, they present such an unequal  and specialist situation they don't really suit Matched play (the concept rather than the rules). 

I think using Etheral units to move through castle walls is a great idea. Although I think this was part of the intent when most of them were given the fly rule, that is they move though stuff rather than over it in the conventional sense. 

I agree it would have to be narrative.  Unless maybe both sides has a castle?  But even then that would require a very high number of models to be fun.

[Ollie Grimwood]

2 minutes ago, chord said:

I agree it would have to be narrative.  Unless maybe both sides has a castle?  But even then that would require a very high number of models to be fun.

How awesome would that be though. It'd probably play like a number of individual linked games in practice 

[chord]

Just now, Ollie Grimwood said:

How awesome would that be though. It'd probably play like a number of individual linked games in practice 

That would be awesome. 

[KHHaunts]

just as a mention to why i mentioned this in the first place(as the topic does seen to have gone way of piste)

the article said that the rules already work well because of . . . .(read the article).

I just wanted to point out that what the article said wasent true so that people dont start insisting that what the article said is the rules. More of a problem in matched play that anything.

Id agree that a siege game would be very bias without house rules or narrative rules.